Jump to content

Jet Engine Paramotor.


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

For a while now I have wanted to build a Jet engine (back pack / no frame) Paramotor. The idea is as mad as a box of frogs I know.

I am well aware that it is entirely unpractical and a silly idea, but I have always wanted to do it. (inspred by the this bloke)

It has been one of those ideas that I thought, if I win the lotto...... BUT BUT

I have recently been to Palma to teach some people how to fly a paramotor, and one of them is keen to fund my idea for a laugh.

I have the money in place now and am looking for a Jet engine LOLOL

How cool is that LOL

I will make a set of you tube vids showing the progress.


If anyone here knows anything about jet engines and would like to help please get in touch.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Simon....

Question is though- which way to go...

1) Reaction/Thrust engine- as per the above clip- perhaps the simplest way to do it....

2) Power takeoff /transmission/gearbox and prop- similar to a turbine helicpoter transmission.. perhaps a little more efficient but more 'lag'

Either way resonse 'lag' will not be as good as with a 2 stroke.... but it will make a very interesting project.

Id say a basic reaction/thrust setup would be easiest to do. but beware the hot exhaust gases.... and the potential to burn the wing on launch....

I heard rumor that Leavesly Aviation was working on this also..... but knowing them it didn't get past the rumor stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I seem to favour the jet thrust rather than a jetprop. Loosing the flames and smoke would take a chunk of buzz away :D

The Company that built the engine in the pic above seems to have dissapeared.

I cant find and Mini Jet that has enough thrust at the moment.

I know one will exist though!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon- I think what you want are some of the model turbine manufacturers to supply this.. There are a few suppliers in this field- off the top of my head 'Wren' spring to mind- i think they are UK based.

You'll need between 60-80 kgs of thrust, so perhaps two engines may be needed. These engines are very small though- 'bean tin' sized.... but produce a lot of thrust for their size/weight. They've got an appetite though!!!

If Frank Whittle could have seen these!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It looks like two of the biggest ones will give only 30kg of thrust :-(

I did find one on the net a few months ago, that produced 65kg of thrust but I just cant re find it for the life of me!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If 2 or 3 model turbines don't appeal- there is one other way of getting the thrust you need using a different type of power source- Hydrogen Peroxide.

A hydrogen peroxide-powered motor is based on the decomposition reaction of hydrogen peroxide. Nearly pure (90%) hydrogen peroxide is used. Pure hydrogen peroxide is relatively stable, but in contact with the catalyst (for example, silver) it decomposes into a mixture of superheated steam and oxygen in less than 1/10 millisecond increasing in volume 5000 times: 2 H2O2 = 2 H2O + O2. The reaction is exothermic, i.e. with liberation of much heat (about 2500 kJ/kg), forming in this case a steam-gas mixture at 740 °C. This hot gas is used exclusively as the reaction mass and is directly led to one or more jet nozzles.

This system is used on the 'Jet packs'-- the only way powerful enough to do this. Power requirement would be much less if using a wing- therefore pack could be smaller.


Instant thrust- no 'lag' on the mechanical turbine

Simple principle, just adding the catalysit to the peroxide- direct the gasses out the back and away!


High cost/availability of peroxide fuel

Super heated steam.... not nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Simon my mate has a few model jet turbines i am sure if you ring him to ask some question he wont mind

phone bracklesham board riders on 01243 671777 ask for (james)

top bloke tell mark morgan told you to ring..

let me know how you get on :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another guy was planning to do this. Mark Leavesley (paraglider and also sells rc jets) - the guy who organises the homegrown flying festival. Not sure how far he's got though.

EDIT: forgot the link to the above, here it is:


This other dude seems to have got quite far (at least at putting them into a harness). But he's using 3 turbines and at 2 grand plus each thats pretty expensive. I think also that they drink very large volumes of paraffin compared to piston engines drinking petrol for a given time so I think you'd have to carry a huge amount of weight in fuel to have a 1/2 hour flight.


Great idea though. I wanted an r/c jet a few years back but then realised I could start paragliding for the same price! so paragliding it was.

EDIT: I met someone who used a wren turbine (british made) in his r/c heli and said the after sales technical support was very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting, i was thinkin about a chap who has an underpowered 4 stroke and i got thinkin just for take off using a nitros oxide boost just to get in the air?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hydrogen Peroxide approach appears to be a good way of getting a rather immediate burst of power. Until the advent of nuclear propulsion covered the requirement for fast submarine propulsion without dependency on access to the atmosphere, the Kriegsmarine and later the Royal Navy (and others) experimented with submarines using HTP propulsion systems. These were seriously fast - the fastest things under the oggin until the soviet alphas (50+ knots. tiny hull, nuclear reactor with molten sodium coolant. yikes. luckily deaf as a post and really noisy) appeared a decade or two later.

However, these HTP submarines (HMS EXPLORER, HMS EXCALIBUR) were generally referred to as the 'Exploder' class. Wonder why.....

HTP propulsion systems do exist today, mostly in weapons systems!

Jetpack it is then..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit vague but I have looked into this kind of thing before and I seem to remember that the small (but not too small!) turbine of choice is one which is used to start larger jet engines.

Don't recall what they are called but a quick google brought up several options. (APU Auxiliary Power Unit/JFS Jet Fuelled Starter?)




Simon, you are a proper English eccentric crackpot!!! It sounds like the kind of thing that you could easily rope Gilo into?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I be the first to volunteer as a test pilot? :D

I`ve got my lightweight, air portable, telescopic shitty stick. Ready to beat off the hordes of adoring young Lady's :D:D

Colin B2

(RAF (potential slow jet pilot!!!))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Maintain flight level in 2000 for half a minute"

watch video for fuel tank size. And aerofoil size. 8)

Mad as a box of frogs on a cast iron stove I reckon.

As we say on PEI Simon: Give'er wa.

I have a friend up the road working on a pto PPC that's turbine based.

It will be so very thirsty and loud that it will be exquisitely uncomfortable to be around for too long.

I'm looking forward to it.

And yours.

Hey, make it a jetbelt :D

News would pass you around a bit for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A little update...

I have found a single Jet engine that will do the job nicely. It is double the price we were expecting so I have posed the question to the sponsor. If he is happy then I will order it ASAP.

Gilo from Parajet has also said that he will help to build it and let us (Pete B and I) use his workshop!!

so fingers Xed

It is a £9000 engine so he may not go for it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


That's a mad price... you've got to stand back and ask yourself 'what are the features and benefits of this?' Why would a jet engine be better than what we have at the moment? Why would someone do this?

Wing will still fly at set speed...25-35 mph

Recipricating piston engine with a propellor is more efficient, more economical and has greater response...

Recipricating piston engine is cheaper (by far)

Recipricating piston engine is quieter...

Turbine has a lag time, not as responsive

Operates best at constant rpm

Very fuel hungry- not as economical as a 2 stroke

Much noisier than Recipricating piston engine

Ok sure! it will look good, sound good- but in practical terms it is not what you want. If i was an investor, i'd not sponsor this project- my money would firmly be on the 2-stroke direct injection camp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nut shell yes, it is an utterly stupid idea.

But, the sponsor is someone who just likes the idea of it like me.

As I said, If I had won the lotto I would have done it for fun, and maybe a little publicity.

People do silly things :D

This is a silly fun thing.

He is not an investor... just someone spending some cash on something that sounds like a good laugh. (If he is happy with the number which is twice what we expected)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you thought of how hot the exaust gas will be at the wing. I can see a poss melt down if you use to bigger jet!!!!

Why will it be at the wing

non powered forward launch and the wing will come through the heat in seconds, not long enough to do any thing to it.

Or reverse

Pete b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Create New...